Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998
Also, thanks once again for proving that you can't actually challenge anything I said about scripture or its proper interpretation.

Nope ... can't challenge that scripture interpretation.

Particularly when that interpretation tries to take a statement where Paul says that he prefers not to build on any other Apostle's foundation ... and make it into something about Paul meaning Peter specifically, ... but not wanting to name him ... because Peter was a hunted man.

Now that's what I call a questionable interpretation ... if not ... off the wall.

(Tell you what ... you find anything published that supports that interpretation ... you get back to me).

When you presented that one ... it was clear that you'd say anything to prevent having to admit that you were spinning out of control.

I guess I thought that I'd give you a chance to recant.

Oh well ...
1 Corinthians 15:20 My ambition has always been to preach the Good News where the name of Christ has never been heard, rather than where a church has already been started by someone else.

21 I have been following the plan spoken of in the Scriptures, where it says, "Those who have never been told about him will see, and those who have never heard of him will understand."

153 posted on 02/10/2006 7:37:41 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: Quester

You wrote:

"Nope ... can't challenge that scripture interpretation."

That was clear from the beginning.

"Particularly when that interpretation tries to take a statement where Paul says that he prefers not to build on any other Apostle's foundation ... and make it into something about Paul meaning Peter specifically, ... but not wanting to name him ... because Peter was a hunted man."

And that is all we talked about regarding scripture? Nope. Again, you try to twist the argument, to narrow it as if it were about only this or that that you think you conveniently succeeded at. Is that really an honest approach?

"Now that's what I call a questionable interpretation ... if not ... off the wall."

And still, you're blithely passing over everything else. Yes, you have to pretend nothing else was mentioned.

"(Tell you what ... you find anything published that supports that interpretation ... you get back to me)."

Sure, just as soon as you tell me when you renounced sola scriptura.

"When you presented that one ... it was clear that you'd say anything to prevent having to admit that you were spinning out of control."

Since I never spin out of control that can't be.

"I guess I thought that I'd give you a chance to recant."

I have nothing to recant of with you.

"Oh well ...
1 Corinthians 15:20 My ambition has always been to preach the Good News where the name of Christ has never been heard, rather than where a church has already been started by someone else. 21 I have been following the plan spoken of in the Scriptures, where it says, "Those who have never been told about him will see, and those who have never heard of him will understand."

Yeah, and who was building the Church in Rome? Peter.


154 posted on 02/12/2006 12:43:20 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson